Methods: Between May 1966 and May 2011, a literature survey was conducted using electronic search engines including PubMed, Medline and Google and manually surveying the magazines on heart and vascular surgery. A total of 36 prospective and retrospective controlled studies which met the inclusion criteria were included in the metaanalysis. The outcomes of both techniques were evaluated using random and fixed-effect method, based on their significant heterogeneous nature. Statistical analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta Analysis version 2 software.

Results: It was found that the results of eight meta-analyses obtained (tricuspid and mitral insufficiency, the need for permanent or temporary pacemaker, sinus rhythm, survival at 1 and 10 year, the right atrial pressure) were significantly improved in bicaval group, compared to the biatrial group.

Conclusion: Our study results showed that the outcomes of the bicaval technique were better, compared to biatrial technique. We believe that the bicaval anastomosis technique may have a positive effect on morbidity, due to its clinical and hemodynamical benefits.